`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Page 1 of 25
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1005
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Lam Research Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (“Pet.”)
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,221
`(“the ’221 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 4. Daniel L. Flamm (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 9. We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 1, 4,
`and 5–7 of the ’221 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`of those claims.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner states that “[t]he ’221 patent is presently at issue in the
`declaratory judgment action Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case
`5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.).” Pet. 3. Patent Owner also identifies a
`civil action, titled Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00613-LY (W.D. Tex.), as a related proceeding.
`Paper 6, 1.
`The ’221 Patent
`B.
`The ’221 patent, titled “Process Depending on Plasma Discharges
`Sustained by Inductive Coupling,” is directed to a process for fabricating a
`product using plasma discharge. Ex. 1001, 6:14–16. The process “relies
`upon the control of the instantaneous plasma AC potential to selectively
`control a variety of plasma characteristics,” such as “the amount of neutral
`species, the amount of charged species, overall plasma potential, the spatial
`extent and distribution of plasma density, the distribution of electrical
`
`Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`current, and others.” Id. at 6:16–22. The process “can be used in
`applications including chemical dry etching (e.g., stripping, etc.), ion-
`enhanced etching, plasma immersion ion implantation, chemical vapor
`deposition and material growth, and others.” Id. at 6:22–26.
`The process comprises subjecting a substrate to a composition of
`entities, where “[a]t least one of the entities emanates from a species
`generated by a gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field in which
`the vector sum of the phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages (e.g.,
`AC plasma voltage) from the inductive coupling structure are substantially
`balanced.” Id. at 6:31–37. According to the ’221 patent, “[t]his process
`provides for a technique that is substantially free from stray or parasitic
`capacitive coupling from the plasma source to chamber bodies (e.g.,
`substrate, walls, etc.) at or near ground potential.” Id. at 6:37–41.
`The ’221 patent also describes a plasma discharge apparatus that
`includes a plasma source and a plasma applicator. Id. at 7:26–28. “A wave
`adjustment circuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmission line, etc.) is operably
`coupled to the plasma applicator” and “can selectively adjust phase and anti-
`phase potentials of the plasma from an rf power supply.” Id. at 7:30–34.
`Figure 2A of the ’221 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`Figure 2A is a simplified configuration using wave adjustment circuits. Id.
`at 7:46–47. Embodiment 50 includes discharge tube 52, inductive applicator
`55, exterior shield 54, upper wave adjustment circuit 57, lower wave
`adjustment circuit 59, plasma source region 60, and rf power supply 61. Id.
`at 10:3–8. “In this embodiment, the wave adjustment circuits are adjusted to
`provide substantially zero AC voltage at one point on the inductive coil
`(refer to point 00 in FIG. 2A),” providing “substantially equal phase 70 and
`anti-phase 71 voltage distributions in directions about this point (refer to 00-
`A and 00-C in FIG. 2A)” and “substantially equal capacitance coupling to
`the plasma from physical inductor elements (00-C) and (00-A), carrying the
`phase and anti-phase potentials.” Id. at 10:14–22. According to the ’221
`patent, “[s]ince the capacitive current increases monotonically with the
`magnitude of the difference of peak phase and anti-phase voltages, which
`occur at points A and C in FIG. 2A, this coupling can be lessened by
`reducing this voltage difference,” which is achieved by way of wave
`adjustment circuits 57 and 59. Id. at 10:31–37.
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7 of the ’221 patent. Claim 1 is the
`only independent claim, and reads as follows:
`A process for fabricating a product using a plasma
`1.
`source, said process comprising the steps of subjecting a
`substrate to entities, at least one of said entities emanating from
`a gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field from an
`inductive coupling structure in which a phase portion and an anti-
`phase portion of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive
`coupling structure are selectively balanced;
`wherein said inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a
`wave adjustment circuit, said wave adjustment circuit
`
`Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase portion of
`the capacitively coupled currents.
`Ex. 1001, 22:58–23:2.
`The Prior Art
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`Exhibit No.
`Reference
`Description
`Date
`1004
`Knapp
`US 4,877,999
`Oct. 3, 1989
`Collins
`US 5,065,118
`Nov. 12, 1991 1005
`Dible
`US 5,573,595
`Nov. 12, 1996 1003
`Review of Inductively
`Hopwood
`Apr. 1, 1992
`1006
`Coupled Plasmas for
`Plasma Processing, Plasma
`Sources Sci. Technol. 1
`(1992) 109–116
`Lieberman93 Design of High-Density
`Plasma Sources for
`Materials Processing,
`University of California,
`Berkeley Technical Report
`No. UCB/ERL M93/3
`Lieberman94 Design of High-Density
`Plasma Sources for
`Materials Processing,
`Plasma Sources for Thin
`Film Deposition and
`Etching (Physics of Thin
`Films Vol. 18)
`
`Aug. 18, 1994 1012
`
`Jan. 11, 1993
`
`1002
`
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–7 of the ’221 patent
`on the following grounds:
`
`Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`References
`
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Dible
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Knapp, or Dible and Knapp
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Collins, or Dible and Collins
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Hopwood, or Dible and Hopwood
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 5–7
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 5–7
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2–3
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4
`
`7
`
`
`
`Although Petitioner lists these challenges as five challenges, there are
`a significantly larger number of individual challenges. For example, the
`challenge to claims 2 and 3 as obvious over Lieberman93 or Lieberman94,
`and Knapp, or Dible and Knapp, deconstructs to at least four challenges, i.e.,
`the combination of Lieberman93 and Knapp; the combination of
`Lieberman94 and Knapp; the combination of Lieberman93, Dible, and
`Knapp; and the combination of Lieberman94, Dible, and Knapp. Thus,
`when properly tallied, Petitioner asserts sixteen challenges to the
`patentability of the claims. The Petition does not address these sixteen
`challenges individually. We address the challenges as presented in the
`Petition.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In the case of an expired
`
`Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`patent, however, the Board’s interpretation of the claims is similar to that of
`a District Court. See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`In such a case, we are guided by the principle that the words of a claim “are
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`(internal citation omitted).
`Though it appears that the ’221 patent expired on December 4, 2015,
`we need not decide which claim construction standard applies. For purposes
`of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of
`the claim terms requires an explicit construction.
`B.
`Anticipation by Lieberman93 or Lieberman94
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1 and 5–7 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lieberman93 or
`Lieberman94 (collectively, “Lieberman”).1 Pet. 21–32. Petitioner provides
`claim charts, and relies on the Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi (“Cecchi
`Declaration,” Ex. 1007) in support of its contentions. Id.
`Overview of Lieberman
`1.
`Lieberman is directed to “recent advances in plasma source
`technology for materials processing applications.” Ex. 1002, Abs.
`According to Lieberman, “[t]he advent of sub-micron electronic device
`
`1 Petitioner represents that “Lieberman93 and Lieberman94 are essentially
`identical in content, with only minor variations that do not impact the
`invalidity analysis.” Pet. 5, n. 3. In the Petition, “[w]here referred to
`generally and not distinguished as Lieberman93 or Lieberman94,” Petitioner
`referred to the references “collectively and/or interchangeably as
`‘Lieberman.’” Id. We do the same in this Decision.
`
`Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`fabrication has brought unprecedented demands for process optimization and
`control, which, in turn, have led to improved plasma reactors for the etching
`and deposition of thin films.” Ex. 1002, 1 (internal citations omitted); Ex.
`1012, 2 (internal citations omitted).
`Lieberman describes two inductive source configurations, one using a
`cylindrical coil, the other a planar coil, for a low profile source. Ex. 1002,
`23; Ex. 1012, 52. “The planar coil is a flat helix wound from near the axis to
`near the outer radius of the source chamber (‘electric stovetop’ coil shape),”
`and can be united with a cylindrical coil “to give ‘cylindrical cap’ or
`hemispherical’ coil shapes.” Id. Lieberman states that “inductive coils can
`be driven by a 13.56 MHz, 50 ohm rf supply through a [ ] matching
`network,” and that “[t]he coil can be driven push-pull using a balanced
`transformer, which places a virtual ground in the middle of the coil and
`reduces the maximum coil-to-plasma voltage by a factor of two.” Ex. 1002,
`23; Ex. 1012, 52–53. Lieberman explains that “[t]his reduces the undesired
`capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of
`two.” Ex. 1002, 23; Ex. 1012, 53.
`Lieberman also teaches that “[p]lasma in an inductive source is
`created by application of rf power to a non-resonant, inductive coil, resulting
`in the breakdown of the process gas within or near the coil by the induced rf
`electric field,” and “[t]he plasma created in the source region streams toward
`a wafer holder that can be independently biased by application of rf power
`using a separate generator.” Ex. 1002, 23; Ex. 1012, 53–54.
`Discussion
`2.
`Petitioner contends that Lieberman discloses all of the elements of
`independent claim 1, and provides arguments setting forth where each of the
`
`Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`limitations may be found. Pet. 21–29. For example, Petitioner contends that
`Lieberman’s disclosure that the inductive coil “can be driven push-pull using
`a balanced transformer, which places a virtual ground in the middle of the
`coil and reduces the maximum coil-to-plasma voltage by a factor of two”
`and “reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil
`to plasma by a factor of two” meets the “a phase portion and an anti-phase
`portion of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure
`are selectively balanced; wherein said inductive coupling structure is
`adjusted using a wave adjustment circuit, said wave adjustment circuit
`adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase portion of the capacitively
`coupled currents” limitations of claim 1. Id. at 24–27. We are persuaded,
`on this record, that Petitioner’s discussion of the particular operations and
`structures in Lieberman, and the explanations in the Petition, are sufficient to
`establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated
`by Lieberman. As Petitioner points out, the ’221 patent describes an
`embodiment that includes a wave adjustment circuit comprising a balun
`(balanced-unbalanced) toroidal transformer, where “the midpoint 406
`between the phase 405 and anti-phase voltage on the coil is effectively rf
`grounded,” and also uses push-pull balanced coupling, which Lieberman
`also teaches. Id. at 26–27.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, and do not find them
`to be persuasive on this record. For example, Patent Owner argues that
`Lieberman does not disclose “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of
`capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are
`selectively balanced” limitation of claim 1 because “the balancing of the
`phase and anti-phase—as taught in the ’221 patent—results in not simply a
`
`Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`reduction by a factor of two, but substantially eliminates capacitively
`coupled power.” Prelim. Resp. 5. The statement in the ’221 patent that
`Patent Owner contends teaches substantially eliminating capacitively
`coupled power refers to specifically-described embodiments. See Ex. 1001,
`9:2–6 (“But in all of these above embodiments, the phase and anti-phase
`potentials substantially cancel each other, thereby providing substantially no
`capacitively coupled power from the plasma source to the chamber
`bodies.”). Patent Owner does not explain why claim 1’s recitation that the
`phase and anti-phase portions are selectively balanced requires that the
`capacitively coupled power be substantially eliminated.
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further requires “said process is
`provided in a chamber.” Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and additionally
`requires “the chamber is provided for a process selected from etching,
`deposition, sputtering, or implantation.” Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and
`further recites “said inductive coupling structure provides a wave multiple
`selected from a one-sixteenth wave, a one-eighth wave, a quarter-wave, a
`half-wave, a three-quarter wave, and a full-wave.” We have considered the
`arguments and evidence with respect to dependent claims 5–7, and are
`persuaded on the present record that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail as to those claims as well.
`C. Obviousness over Lieberman and Dible
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 5–7 would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Dible.
`Pet. 33–47. Petitioner relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its
`contentions. Id.
`
`Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`Overview of Dible
`1.
`Dible is directed to methods and apparatus for inducing plasma in low
`pressure plasma systems that are typically used in semiconductor
`fabrication. Ex. 1003, 1:7–9. In particular, Dible “relates to methods and
`apparatus for variable control of the plasma generating element to achieve
`combinations of inductive and/or capacitive coupling.” Id. at 1:9–12.
`The Dible device includes “a first radio frequency excitation source
`for outputting a first excitation current having a first phase and a first
`amplitude” and “a second radio frequency excitation source for outputting a
`second excitation current having a second phase and a second amplitude”
`along with “a plasma generating element having a first end and a second end
`for receiving respectively the first excitation current and the second
`excitation current.” Id. at 2:30–37. The Dible device also “includes a
`control circuit having a control input for receiving a user-variable signal
`indicative of a desired phase difference between the first phase and the
`second phase.” Id. at 2:38–41. The control circuit, in response to the
`control input, outputs a control signal to one of the first or second radio
`frequency excitation sources, effectuating a phase difference between the
`first and second phases that substantially approximates the desired phase
`difference. Id. at 2:41–48.
`The Dible device “becomes essentially an inductive coupling device
`when the first phase and the second phase are opposite in phase,” and
`“becomes essentially a capacitive coupling device” when the first and
`second phases are in phase. Id. at 2:48–52. When the first and second phase
`differ by an angle between phase and opposite in phase, the Dible device
`
`Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`“becomes a combination inductive and capacitive coupling device.” Id. at
`2:52–55.
`Discussion
`2.
`Petitioner contends that “Lieberman itself teaches all of the limitations
`of independent claim 1,” and further contends that Dible “teaches adjustment
`of phase and anti-phase portions of the capacitively coupled currents via a
`control circuit.” Pet. 33. Petitioner contends that it would have been
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dible’s
`control circuit into Lieberman’s inductively-coupled plasma generation
`system “for the purpose of allowing controlled adjustment of the phase
`difference and, thus, of the undesirable capacitive coupling of the coil to the
`plasma.” Id. at 47. According to Petitioner, “[t]he strong similarity between
`the systems of Lieberman and Dible would render modification of the
`former with aspects of the latter straightforward and well within the skill” of
`a person having ordinary skill in the art, who would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so. Id. at 46.
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the combination of
`Lieberman and Dible teaches or suggests all of the limitations required by
`independent claim 1. As Petitioner alleges, Dible, for example, allows for
`active adjustment of current phases so that the device is an “inductive
`coupling device when the first phase and second phase are opposite in
`phase.” Ex. 1003, 2:48–50. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to incorporate Dible’s controlled adjustment of phase difference
`in Lieberman’s plasma generator “for the purpose and benefit of providing
`
`Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`active control over the phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents.”
`Pet. 33.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and, based on the
`record before us, do not find them to be persuasive. For example, Patent
`Owner argues that Dible does not disclose the “wherein said inductive
`coupling structure is adjusted using a wave adjustment circuit” limitation of
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that “[e]ven if one were to
`assume that Dible’s ‘plasma generating system’ were an ‘inductive coupling
`structure,’ once it were ‘adjusted’ it would be, according to Dible, a
`capacitive coupling structure (or some combination coupling structure)” and
`“would no longer [be] an ‘inductive coupling structure.’” Id. According to
`Patent Owner, “the problems and solutions set forth in Dible, with the
`exception of employing a phase adjustment circuit, are totally alien to the
`problems set forth in the ’221 patent.” Id. at 12. Petitioner, however, only
`relies on Dible’s disclosure of “a control circuit having a control input for
`receiving a user-variable signal indicative of a desired phase difference
`between the first phase and second phase” with respect to this claim
`limitation. See Pet. 37–38, 41–42. Patent Owner does address whether a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Dible for this
`purpose.
`We have also considered the arguments and evidence with respect to
`dependent claims 5–7 and are persuaded, on the current record, that
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as
`to those claims as well.
`
`Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Lieberman and Knapp, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp
`Petitioner contends that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Knapp, or
`the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp. Pet. 47–52. Petitioner
`relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Knapp
`Knapp is directed to a method and apparatus for producing noble-gas
`plasma for excitation in optical emission spectroscopy, where the excitation
`means employed is a high-frequency generator. Ex. 1004, 1:10–14. Knapp
`teaches that plasma is formed and located between two mutually opposite
`capacitor plates, and “the energy required for firing and maintaining of the
`plasma is coupled into the gas” through the capacitor plates, which, with an
`inductor, form “an oscillating circuit” that is “fed with an hf potential at a
`frequency corresponding to the resonant frequency of the oscillating circuit.”
`Id. at 1:63–2:2.
`Knapp describes an embodiment where “the hf generator includes an
`internal regulating circuit designed” so that “the generator output frequency
`is automatically set” to the “value at which maximum power is accepted by
`the oscillation circuit.” Id. at 4:8–13. Knapp teaches that, in this
`embodiment, instead of the oscillation circuit being tuned, “the generator
`output frequency is tuned (within a predetermined range) to the arbitrary
`resonant frequency of the oscillation circuit.” Id. at 4:13–16.
`2.
`Analysis
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites that “the wave
`adjustment circuit selectively adjusts a frequency of an rf power supply.”
`Claim 3 also depends from claim 1, and additionally requires that “the high
`
`Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`frequency field is adjusted using a variable frequency power supply.”
`Petitioner relies on Knapp to meet these additional limitations of claims 2
`and 3. Pet. 47–51.
`A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the
`prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
`(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
`instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). An
`analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should
`be made explicit.” Id.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`“would have reasons to use the Knapp’s adjustable frequency power supply
`within the plasma generating apparatuses of Lieberman or, alternatively, of
`Lieberman in view of Dible” because “Knapp also is directed to a system for
`‘producing a high-frequency . . . plasma’” and “teaches the obvious
`alternative of using frequency tuning, as opposed to mechanical tuning, for
`the matching network to achieve the desired phase and anti-phase
`configuration.” Pet. 51. Petitioner further contends that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that the tuning method based on
`automatically adjusting the frequency of the generator was a workable
`alternative to the mechanical tuning taught by Lieberman and Dible, and
`simpler than insuring that the current and the voltage of the Dible generators
`had sufficient headroom, something that may not be known a priori.” Id. at
`52.
`
`Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`These statements do not constitute an articulated reasoning with
`rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
`combine some elements of Lieberman alone, or the combination of
`Lieberman and Dible, with some elements of Knapp, and why one of
`ordinary skill in the would modify the teachings of Lieberman and Dible in
`view of Knapp’s teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Petitioner
`contends that Knapp teaches that frequency tuning is an “obvious
`alternative” to mechanical tuning, but does not provide sufficient
`explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`consider that to be so. Similarly, although Petitioner states that
`automatically adjusting the frequency is a “workable alternative” and
`“simpler” than the mechanical tuning taught by Lieberman and Dible,
`Petitioner fails to provide an adequate explanation why a person having
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Knapp’s tuning method is
`simpler, or that there would be a reasonable expectation of success in
`substituting frequency tuning, as described in Knapp, for the mechanical
`tuning described by Lieberman and Dible.
`Instead, Petitioner appears to contend that each element of claims 2
`and 3 of the ’221 patent was known in the prior art. That is insufficient to
`establish that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious under a theory of
`obviousness based on the combination of Lieberman and Knapp, or the
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp. See Cheese Sys. Inc. v. Tetra
`Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`(“Obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight combination of components
`selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the patented
`invention.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As explained in KSR, “a
`
`Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
`prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Consequently, we are not persuaded that
`the Petition establishes sufficiently why a person having ordinary skill in the
`art would attempt to improve Lieberman alone, or the combination of
`Lieberman and Dible, by looking to Knapp.
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail on the ground that claims 2 and 3 would
`have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
`Lieberman and Knapp, or the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp.
`E.
`Obviousness over Lieberman and Collins, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Collins
`Petitioner contends that claim 4 would have been obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Collins, or the
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Collins. Pet. 53–56. Petitioner relies
`on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Collins
`Collins is directed to the connection of a first electrical circuit (the
`source) to a second electrical circuit (the load) using a matching network in
`order to provide maximum power transfer between the source and the load.
`Ex. 1005, 1:6–10. Collins teaches a matching network that matches an
`output impedance of a source with an input impedance of a load, wherein the
`matching network includes a plurality of transmission line stubs. Id. at
`2:40–44. Collins states that “[e]ach transmission line stub includes a first
`transmission line conductor, a second transmission line conductor running
`parallel to but not in electrical contact with the first transmission line
`
`Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`conductor, and ferrite dielectric material between the first transmission line
`conductor and the second transmission line conductor.” Id. at 2:45–50.
`Collins Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 “shows an electronically tuned VHF/UHF matching network in
`accordance with the preferred embodiment” described in Collins. Id. at
`3:23–25. Source 21 is connected to load 22 through an electronically tuned
`VHF/UHF matching network consisting of transmission line stubs 45 and
`46. Id. at 3:44–49. Transmission line stub 45 consists of transmission line
`conductor 30 separated by a ferrite dielectric material. Id. at 3:59–62. A
`magnetic field is applied to transmission line stub 45 by a current generated
`by DC power supply 44 through wire 41, which is wrapped around
`transmission line stub 45. Id. at 3:62–65. Collins teaches that “[v]arying the
`current through wire 41, and thus the magnetic field applied to transmission
`line stub 45, varies the relative permeability of transmission line stub 45.”
`Id. at 3:65–68. Collins also describes an embodiment where “a matching
`network of the type shown in FIG. 1” is “applied to a system which is used
`in a plasma process inside a plasma chamber.” Id. at 4:35–37.
`
`Page 18 of 25
`
`
`
`Analysis
`2.
`Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the wave
`adjustment circuit comprises a transmission line.” Petitioner contends that
`Collins teaches this limitation when it describes a matching network that
`comprises a plurality of transmission lines, which matches the output
`impedance of a source with the input impedance of a load. Pet. 53.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`understand from this disclosure that a transmission line represents a type of
`wave adjustment circuit, and that Collins teaches the use of transmission
`lines to adjust the phase of power between an rf source and a load, such as
`plasma.” Id.
`Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the
`art would understand from Collins’s description of “electronic tuning using
`‘a transmission line stub 45 and a transmission line stub 46, arranged in the
`shown topology [of Figure 1]’” that Collins teaches “the wave adjustment
`circuit comprises a transmission line” element of claim 4. Pet. 53–54.
`According to Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have reasons to use Collins’[s] transmission line stub topology with the
`plasma generating apparatuses of Lieberman and Dible” because “[l]ike
`Lieberman and Dible, Collins is directed to the problem of coupling rf power
`to a load, such as plasma” and “Lieberman and Dible teach the use of
`matching networks.” Id. at 55.
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the combination of
`Lieberman and Collins, and the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and
`Collins, teaches or suggests all of the limitations required by claim 4. As
`Petitioner points out, the ’221 patent recognizes that a transmission line can
`
`Page 19 of 25
`
`
`
`be a wave adjustment circuit. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:30–32 (“A wave
`adjustment circuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmission line, etc.) is operably
`coupled to the plasma applicator.”)). Patent Owner does not offer any
`arguments specific to claim 4. See Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (“At least because
`[Petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that independent claim 1 is anticipated
`by Lieberman or rendered obvious by Lieberman in view of Dible, none of
`the claims that depend from claim 1 are anticipated or obvious despite
`[Petitioner’s] introduction of additional prior art references purported to
`relate to those dependent claims.”).
`Consequently, we are persuaded on the present record that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`demonstrating that claim 4 would have been obvious over the combination
`of Lieberman and Collins, or the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and
`Collins.
`F.
`Obviousness over Lieberman and Hopwood, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Hopwood
`Petitioner contends that claim 7 would have been obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Hopwood, or the
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Hopwood. Pet. 56–59. Petitioner
`relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Hopwood
`Hopwood provides a review of inductively coupled plasma (“ICP”)
`geometries. Ex. 1006, Abs. Hopwood states that “the trend toward high-
`rate, single-wafer processing in integrated circuit (IC) fabrication has
`motivated the development of low-pressure (<1 Torr) ICPs for plasma-aided
`materials processing applications.” Id. at 109.
`
`Page 20 of 25
`
`
`
`Hopwood describes a helical resonator plasma source that “consists of
`a cylindrical discharge tube within a helical coil,” wherein the coil “is
`designed with an electrical length of (λ/4 + nλ/2) or (λ/2 + nλ/2), where n =
`0, 1, 2, . . . and λ is the wavelength of the excitation frequency.” Id. at 110.
`Hopwood teaches that “the coil is within a conducting enclosure which
`provides a parasitic capacitance from the coil to ground,” and “a trimming
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
